Assuming that each team has sufficient IP and PA for the season, which combination is better in an $80M league? There are definite strengths and weaknesses for each team.

All numbers below are normalized.

Team 1
Batting: 290/358/465
Defense: Generally C to B+ range, D+ starting cather arm
Pitching: WHIP 1.18, ERC 2.74, HR/100 0.63
Ballpark: >1 park factor but 0 for singles.

Team 2
Batting: 286/342/419
Defense: 5 A+ range (incl. whole IF), A starting catcher arm, other two OFers are B+ and D range
Pitching: WHIP 1.20, ERC 2.98, HR/100 0.78
Ballpark: Basically neutral, but +1 for singles

Team 3
Batting: 281/356/436
Defense: Wide range from D- to A+. Approx. 1,500 relevant PA/162 w/ D- range. B- starting catcher arm
Pitching: WHIP 1.09, ERC 2.54, HR/100 1.98
Ballpark: Pitcher's park, -1 for singles.

I'd play team 2. I think the better fielding outweighs the other comps.

Team 1: I don't know about 80mil theme leagues, but in OLs people are attempting 2-3 SBAs per game. If this is the World Championship Whatever then you'd know better than me what to expect from the other owners. I really like A- arms, since runners will still attempt a lot of steals and get thrown out 28-30% of the time. Other than that, I like Team 1 the best.

Team 2: Neither the .286 AVG or .342 OBP are high enough to justify a + singles park. Also, high caliber fielding is better in - singles parks since each great fielding play takes away a higher percentage of your opponents scoring chances. This team probably has the lowest risk/reward ratio. There's nothing about it edgy enough to win or lose a bunch of games.

Team 3: Is the 1.98 HR/100 a typo? Who cares about ERC, just look at their performance history. High HR/100 pitchers are almost always overpriced. To make it worse, the - singles ballpark and your staff's lower WHIP is going to make those HRs more valuable than they would be in a hitter's park since slugging becomes more valuable in low OBP environments and less valuable in high OBP environments.